I'm interested to hear the responses to this question.
I try not to mix politics with business (especially since I do not like politics very much) but how about this for a politically correct response: the candidate who is best for the country as a whole will be best for the financial advisors.
I was always told that the value of a financial advisor is in their opinions. Always have one - even if you're wrong.
For portfolio returns, I believe Romney is the better candidate for pro-business & Wall Street reasons.
For attracting early retirement/laid-off workers with retirement funds/plans, probably Obama.
Just my (admittedly) biased opinion.
I agree with you that Romney is more pro business than Obama and theoretically, that should result result in higher portfolio returns, but history shows the opposite in terms of the political party. Stock market returns have been much higher under democratic administrations. This might be a coincidence but it is still a fact.
That's due to increased government spending on entitlement programs.
Here's the problem: You can't look at a stock market chart and think about 1 or 2 situations and apply them to today & the future.
If we want the markets/economy to do better, we need government to get out of over-regulating businesses and get out of their way - particularly in the healthcare sector.
Regulations on businesses have never been higher than they are today.
Again, just my opinion.
Not sure why markets do better under democratic administrations. Regulation as a reason for poor market performance is a myth. Of course we don't want over regulation but you need some regulation to protect investors and ensure orderly markets. Lax regulation was a key contributor to the most recent correction and was also a key contributor to the great depression. As for the most recent correction is concerned, an SEC ruling in 2004 allowing broker dealers to get more levered was obviously a contributor to the declines.
The choice couldn't be more clear. Capitalist vs Socialist. In all my years I have never seen a more stark difference between two candidates. If the socialist gets re-elected there may not be a financial services industry left to speak of, unless we all move to the Bahamas and work via the internet off shore. On second thought that sounds pretty good to me.
Free enterprise, self determination which has produced the most egalitarian, highest standard of living know to man versus social justice and an ever decreasing standard of living driven by governmental intervention which disincents initiative.
European style social justice has never worked as witnesses by the certain failure of the EU. Germany with a 5T GDP can not bail out the EU with a 15T GDP.
Romney in a landslide.
Romney is the consummate problem solver, turn around artist and consensus builder. Look at how he handled a failing Olympics, which is a mammoth operation. Also how he built consensus in a heavily democrat Mass. legislature. Businesses, large and small will feel there is more certainty with Romney in the driver's seat.
I hope you don't share these views with your clients. If Obama is a socialist then so is Warren Buffett. When Obama took over, capitalism was on the verge of extinction. Where is the stock market today?
Most of my clients are smart enough to know this on their own, through listening to the words and observance of the actions of the POTUS. Barack Obama and George Bush in 2008/2009 both laid an epic 1+2 punch combo on the economy, but capitalism was far from dead, it was entering a big dip. Thus is the nature of a cyclical economy. The stock market looks great right now, but the economy does not....Why is that? It's artificially propped by the fed.
Words can not be minced, Barack Obama is at best a socialist, but I'm far more inclined to believe he's a global Marxist. Also, based on Dodd/Frank, etc., the President and his party, would love nothing more than to eliminate financial advisors altogether.
This might be a loaded question as most of the FAs and indeed those in the financial services industry, I suspect, are republicans. This is not a judgement statement. I was in the minority when I was with AIG as being an independent. That stated, speaking of capitalism or socialism in this country is really moot as we have both systems ingrained already; viz, interstate highways, libraries, fire and police. Regarding the markets, and free enterprise, Would I like to see more of either? That depends on what is being suggested. More federal money to fix our country's infrastructure, airports, shipping ports and repair of roads and bridges. Yes. Stiffer fines against those that tarnish our profession. Yes. I like Milton Friedman's views, yet, Alan Greenspan did testify before Congress (in his retirement from the Fed) he was wrong to think the markets would regulate themselves. Greed is too powerful an emotion for people who work with money to self regulate themselves. In fact, even with all the rules and regulations our profession is riddled with cheats, liars and thieves. In short, I think Obama will be better for the common investor and in turn will be better for the FA.
I've been an FA for 25 years and every major market crash and recession has occurred under a Republican. The biggie in 1987 (22% drop in one day) happened in 1987, six years into Reagan's presidency, so Repubs can't blame anyone but Reagon for that. Bush had two major crashes and two major recessions. The last one was his last year in office and featured a spectacular financial meltdown--again, no one to blame but the Republicans. If you look at data going back to the Twenties, and average the stock market performance for every administration, Republicans have given us about an annualized ROR of 5.75%, Democrats have given us over 12% annualized ROR. Bush oversaw a more than 50% drop in the DOW, Obama oversaw a 100% increase in the DOW. I will sit back and listen to the Republicans scream about how the increase in the market these last three years has been attributable to Bush.Any way you slice or dice it, give me a Democratically controlled administration. My clients are much happier when they are making, not losing money. When my clients are happy, I'm happy.
We should just ignore the Romney supporters; they are far more interested in themselves as individuals than they are in the greater good. Obama SAVED capitalism by recognizing that it had run amok. He is trying to help the middle class, which is systematically being executed by cowboy capitalists who destroy everything in their path. People on the right simply do not see or understand what has happened to their Reagan-esque ideology: it has been trashed.
Hey, I'm one of Obama's biggest critics, but Romney? Please.
This has turned out to be an interested thread with a mix of opinions. My political views as it pertains to the economy are largely split between the two ideologies. I need to look at the specific policy or specific outlay of cash. Am I, or is society getting something good from the policy?
I would eliminate the retirement portion of social security because I don't think the government should be managing my retirement money. I would eliminate unions for teachers because they don't need any extra help. I get very upset when I hear about teachers who are on strike. Now the liberal side, I would make education free for everyone because I think that education enhances lives and society. I would not reduce marginal tax rates, especially at the upper income levels while we have a large deficit because the deficit will get worse not better. Economic stimulus via tax cuts is a very inefficient method of promoting growth. I would reduce or eliminate capital gains taxes for mostly selfish reasons, but also because this would stimulate trading and increase growth, at least for brokerage firms.
From Dictionary.com, who references World English Dictionary.
Socialist: one who advocates socialism.
Socialism: an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state.
Capitalist: one who advocates capitalism
Capitalism: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
Democracy: government by the people or their elected representatives
Neither Obama nor Romney are true socialists or capitalists. They are both relatively moderates. While I slightly prefer Obama, neither candidate will "bring down" the country nor save the country. What we need is a Congress that serves the people. Not lobbyists or re-election donors. Non-elected interests that manipulate politicians through alignment with Super Pacs and other campaign donors are the real threat to our democracy.
This election and the past four years under Obama has made it clear that we did not Obama. Now it comes down to lefist/Socialist Obama that wants higher taxes and more government control and weaker miltaryvs. Romney would is an Capalistist and wants less government and strong miltary.The social isues of Obama are enough to make me vote the other as well. Business and are freedom would be better with a change to Romney for sure to me
Obama is not right for American due to his socialist/Leftist policy alone. Class warfare and changing the rights of our founding fathers is not good for America now or the future.My vote is against Obama as much it for Romney
As alohajnc correctly pointed out, Obama is not a socialist. The "past four years" is not a great argument either. The financial services industry is far better off today compared to fours years ago. I would have thought this would have been obvious. The financial services industry was on the verge on collapse four years ago and so were the securities markets. The economy needs substantial improvement, though. As someone else correctly pointed out, we need regulation, especially in the financial services industry. Greed to far too powerful a force to allow self regulation. A lack of regulation contributed to the great depressions and the great recession. Taxes may have to go up if we want to reduce the deficit, unless someone comes up with a better idea. I am all for not reducing taxes if we can get the money from somewhere else. With that said, tax rates do not drive the economy. Employers don't base hiring decisions on tax rates. Supply and demand for goods and services is much more important.
Romney by far is the better answer to the problems this country is facing. Obama may not be a Socialist as some of you argue, but there is no doubt that he feels more government is the answer and that the Government can make better use of our money than we can. Government cannot create jobs as the Democrats would have us believe. Romney understands what corporate America needs to resume building the most wealth of any nation on Earth by promoting free market Capitalism and reduction of excessive regulation and taxes which Obama's namesake, ObamaCare, is wrong on both accounts. Just as important, hiding your head in the sand as financial collapse looms because of out of control entitlement may be good politics, but is going to destroy our future and the futures of our children if it is not resolved soon. The only way out of it is the Republican plan to moderate the rate of growth to something sustainable while letting the economy grow out of the financial predicament we are in. Raising taxes and treating the productive business leaders as the enemy rather that the solution, is not going to work and will more likely exacerbate the situation.
Clinton signed into law more deregulation than almost any other president in history. I'm voting Obama.
The coverage of Romney's 47% speech proves the bias of each of the publications. The New York Times wrote and blogged (in one case mockingly) about how the "47%" are indeed deependent on government: they are old, infirm or poor. The WSJ published a leaked draft speech today that Romney never gave eloquently fleshing out Romney's views about the welfare state.
My own view is this: Forget about if people deserve it or not, but how can nearly half the people in this country get some sort of aid? How are we to support this giant, ever expanding entitlement programs in the future? About 70% of the federal government budget is spent on individual assistance programs. Whether the welfare state is fair or not is not the point. It's unsustainable and the programs need to be culled. You can't federalize everything on borrowed money indefinitely.
1). Clinton didn't run
2) Since 2009...11,237 new pages of regulations costing $488 billion
How do you feel about Obama's influence now that he is re-elected?
Who else looks promising in the future?
By clicking below, I acknowledge and agree to Penton's Terms of Service
and to Penton's use of my contact information to communicate with me about Penton's or its third-party
partners' products, services, events and research opportunities. Penton's use of the information I
Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×